Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 6, 2013 7:00pm-7:30pm PDT

7:00 pm
suggested by staff to have the public place assessable to the public. there about 50 to 55 volumes assessable to the public so this increases the volume and more importantly s it increases the numbers of seats by ziploc internet assess so we'll be able to provide a better venue for computer research. there's certify space for staff at the law library so that's why we suggested that the resolution accommodates not only the 0 needs but increases their
7:01 pm
ability to deliver services. >> my last question. do you worry personally that if we set our spice that that will be the bar when we engage in this discussion again about where the law library will be. so if we determine that less space it needed and we negotiate it leased and 20 thousand is the number we set and we should stick to the number. i understand the language is no greater than gone if we don't have to set it at 20 thousand square feet i'd like rather we didn't and what this does is
7:02 pm
this let's the city enter into this lease and our consultant as o pined that this space and this square footage meets our charter regulations. that can not be changed in 10 years from now or 15 years from now the city negotiates a new lease for a different space - the question whether it was adequate for the law library naturally changes over time >> that's my prospective i'm concerned about where we are headed is electric records. i'd like use this money that
7:03 pm
we're spending to move the library which we're going to have to find the funds out of our city actually just putting the electric records - i invited the library and they said the records were only assessable on line. i didn't find that the people were uncomfortable with using the computer. i support the law library i think it's an incredible plays but i think that most people have moved in a certain type of direction and i hope we can
7:04 pm
provided some guidance when we move and design some space. to not just attorneys but individuals who want to engage in the legal process >> i have concerns about last year for the tenants before we release the funds will this come before we spend the dollars? >> john upper dining. yes, it would come before we spend the dollars. so the landlords commits to spend the money and then be regirder for those improvements that add improvements to - we're estimating there's a million dollars of both improvements and, of course, the actual costs
7:05 pm
to move the facilitated those are our expenses but we would ask for an immediate request for research > in the past when we say no more than a million i hope we only spend exactly what is needed. i know it can be very expensive i don't want to say that's not the enemy that was needed. i know that budget is a choice but given all the needs and priorities of our city especially given the numbers of people that i believe the library serves on a daily routine. i do not want to limit the
7:06 pm
services of the library we have incredible needs of people from our city >> thank you. i want to speak out in support of the lease. definitely the renovation and the lawsuit kind of impacts what we can say in this situation. i think as supervisor farrell said the consulting report was helpful in understanding the situation. i used the library before the earthquake and i've used the memory relay building as well. i want them to have great space but the reality see we have to renovate that building and it's
7:07 pm
going to cost 3 times more than the current space. from the consultants report and was mr. updike and our city administrator reported there's going to be better use for terminal space. they won't have the natural sunlight but over 20 years the law library i feel it's adequate and sufficient and i think the resolution as written is should be supported by the board. i also want to say that i acknowledge what the supervisors have said it's the normal people not the attorneys from downtown. i think it should be assessable to the public.
7:08 pm
and the location from the courts and the activity of the legal community was a choice of the law library itself. we also asked that committee and i see that others here the president of the board of trustees have had private fundraising as well. as we're tripling the amount we're needed to if you happened this library. so i'm supportive of this lease. i hope we explore the san francisco public library for the storage of the historical documents and we as a city look for every resources but we also
7:09 pm
ask that you step up and have some extra be funding >> any additional discussion in. let's have a role call. >> on item 13 (calling roll). increase 10 i's and one no >> the resolution is adopted. item fourteen >> it's an ordinance amendment the planning code the preservation of landmarks and
7:10 pm
creating the market street and making the wreck - findings. >> calling roll. there are 11 i's >> item 15. >> this is to establish a code for certain wood frame buildings. and seismic strengthening has not yet concurred are occurred
7:11 pm
>> thank you mr. president, this legislation is long, long overdue. we know that our best response to a major earthquake and we know we're have a larger earthquake is to make sure we're resilient. that our housing remainsful intact and our infrastructure remains intact and the majority of people are able to stay in their housing. if we don't take action to make sure our housing is resilient we'll have a catastrophe. we should have resources to rebuild our infrastructure.
7:12 pm
this is a significant step in that decision that requires that soft housing units 3 stories or higher in terms of our housing stock housing tens of thousands of people to make sure that housing is stabilized. we know that if those buildings collapse we're have displaced residents and they're no longer be rent controlled. it's our favor to make sure this stay intact. i do acknowledge that this legislation does impose a hardship. it's not cheap to resident fit those buildings and especially
7:13 pm
small property owners. we're going to try to make it as easy as possible to get financing for those people. i want to commend the many, many people who have participated in the formation over many years. we should have done that a long time ago. so i believe this is the right way to proceed. i ask for your support >> thank you, colleagues i appreciate your consideration of this legislation i'm happy to support this as well. a number of you may remember in 2010 we worked together to pass
7:14 pm
the emergency space bond to help our earthquake infrastructure. we passed legislation person trying to get volunteer compliance. we know that over 34 unity were destroyed by northridge and the next big one is going to be 2 to 3 times larger. in addition this legislation will require it the soft believes are resident if i did so that the 7 thousand workers who work here will be protected. i want to thank all the folks who have worked over the years
7:15 pm
for this. concerns have been raised from tenants who have been worried about pass there is no from this legislation from the impact and ability for some tenants to stay in their residents. supervisor kim made amendments that i was happy to support that requires the property owners to speak up on issues about the rent board. i have committed to streamline this from the exemplification from the trailing legislation. first, it will simply, if any, the income levels under which the hardship applications will be approved and an hardship
7:16 pm
application can be appealed by a property owner. this will address the hardship application not only for soft story but throughout the city who are looking for hardship application. but i'm happy to commit to working on that and want to thank the tenants union the housing rights committee and the mayors housing and i hope we'll move forward with this legislation today. i want to make sure that ail our buildings in san francisco will save when the next earthquake hits us. i want to commend the overall legislation we all agree on
7:17 pm
preserving our older buildings. this is important for our middle class and working class in san francisco. i personally had a preference rather from the certify pass through. i understand that we're going to work with the mayor's offense under president chiu and this will be people who have been living in rent control units for a long time. i'm happy to see we're working toward the application process. as chu mentioned some of what will be in the improvements process is will be incredible
7:18 pm
important. i've heard from many folks that those applications take about 6 to 7 hours for the application. that's getting all the information together. and when you sit before the board it's an incredibly naitd process. ii think it's incredibly important we amendment this process to be a little less invase i have. a good prospective of those who will be applying for this application i was hoping tailored be some levels of
7:19 pm
agreement today. we're not there yet but the mayor's office committed to insuring that this happens and the tenant community is happy with the final outcome. so i will be supporting today's legislation but i want to urge this is a very important piece of this resident fit of maund u e mandating. >> thank you, my top priority as a supervisor has been public safety, housing and jobs. this advances all of those goals. this legislation will preserve our existing housing stock and save lives. the buildings in question were
7:20 pm
built before 1978 they're all rent control buildings. we're protecting renters. i was here during the 1989. the buildings were basically leaned over to the side and many residents were displaced in san francisco for it was a real challenging time for renters. this is one of the most important legislation to protect the renters. this only has to do with 3 to 5 story buildings. i push for specific language in section 5 to define how the
7:21 pm
administrator office and other agencies will conduct assistance by the new standards. in addition i appreciate the new amendments to accommodate the trailing legislation that we anticipate with an exception of that trailing legislation to be done in 12 months. this language is critical to making the process a success. we have to make the city safer and at any time truly a collaborate effort. i ladder to this legislation passing and i'm happy to be a
7:22 pm
co- sponsor and i'm hoping the impacts won't be devastating to those folks who are housed in those units >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank everyone who has been working on this including president chiu as well as the mayor's straw hat and a number of people in the community would have been working with the mayor's office. i want to thank patrick for reaching out to us and providing us information. obviously this is an important item we need to move forward. the one question has to do with the timing of the trailing legislation and so to the chair if mr. chu will give a sense of what you think the trailing
7:23 pm
legislation will be expected and maybe it's president chiu or the mayor's office were we understand there is an agreement at least in principle and i want to marry that as we move forward we're taking all necessary he steps to protect tenants and especially to the hardship we could have more clarity in the process of that that would be very helpful >> thank you supervisor. thank you for the question so far as the timeframe for the legislation our officer including myself have been working very definitely with president chu's staff e-mailing and talking on a daily basis.
7:24 pm
so the timeframe is very soon. we don't need the 12 months stipulated in the legislation. we'd be happy to join our conversations as we move forward >> i don't think that 12 months would be very soon even though that's very soon are we talking about two months? >> yes seems reasonable. >> i'm happy to echo that i hope within the next few months to move forward. i think we all know that the requirement in the law is a hundred percent pass through. as we were doing our research it was actually another supervisor that had agreed to the one hundred percent pass over that
7:25 pm
there were certain amendments what would be a 50/50 pass through and others on a one hundred percent pass through. if we were to think about that requirement it would open up all the pass there is no in that area. i think this is important to - or at least to simplify the document process for income levels and situations under which the appeals could happen. i hope in the next few weeks we'll be able to move this forward >> again, i want to thank the
7:26 pm
mayor and president chiu for working on that in the next few weeks we'll be wrapping this up. >> so if there are no other comments madam clerk. >> you'd like a a role call? (calling roll). under those 11 i's. this is passed >> the issuance of a beer and
7:27 pm
wine license will serve the public convenience. i have a certain about one of the conditions number 12 which is also on the next item as condition number 89. >> that is specifically a condition requiring points premises include electronic surveillance which is able to look at all entrances and exits. from what i can tell this may be a trend where the police department maybe putting this condition on perhaps all liquor licenses in the city i don't know. but it concerns we have now two before us in different locations
7:28 pm
where this condition is being included. about two years ago the police department proposed a board requirement that all liquor licenses have a surveillance at their entrances in in addition that they scan all the ids off those who entered. it was wild criticized and the police department apparently didn't pursue them. i'm concerned the condition provides the electronic recording will be available for all to scrutinize.
7:29 pm
perhaps this has a track record of bad things happening but i don't believe this is justified. i'm particularly concerned for gay bars there are people who are not out of the closest who go in to those bars and don't expect to be recorded and that your recorded and the police can request this up to thirty days it's uncomfortable. i don't believe this condition should be included and i'm concerned if this is, in fact, a trend that the department will seek to include this as a matter of course and not as a particular
left
right